Abortion foes plan to renew debate

Legislation summarized

Here is a summary of anti-abortion legislation vetoed last year by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and seen by abortion opponents as a starting point for a debate this year.

The bill would have rewritten laws that restrict late-term abortions and require doctors who perform them to file reports on each procedure with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

The law now says abortions on viable fetuses after the 21st week of pregnancy are allowed only if a woman or girl’s life is in danger, or if she faces a “substantial and irreversible impairment” of a major bodily function. Courts have interpreted a major bodily function to include mental health.

Also, for such abortions, a physician must obtain a second opinion from a physician who is “not legally or financially affiliated” with the doctor performing the abortion.

New reporting rules: In each report on a late-term abortion, the doctor would have to specify the condition creating the risk to the patient’s life or the potential for substantial and irreversible harm to a major bodily function. KDHE now allows the doctor to state only that such a risk exists.

Both doctors would have to submit a sworn statement saying they are not financially or legally affiliated. That’s not required now.

In its annual statistical reports on abortions, KDHE would have to include information about the specific reasons for late-term abortions.

Lawsuits allowed: If a woman or girl who’s had a late-term abortion later believes the procedure was illegal, she could sue the doctor. Also, a husband could sue or, if the patient was under 18, a parent or legal guardian.

The patient would be allowed to collect monetary damages for physical and psychological injuries, plus “reasonable” attorneys fees and an amount equal to three times the cost of the abortion.

Prosecutors’ authority: Criminal charges against doctors over potentially illegal abortions could be filed not only by the attorney general and the prosecutor in the county in which the abortion was performed, but also by a prosecutor in any county where an act related to the offense occurred.

Licensing change: If a doctor were convicted of violating the late-term abortion law, the State Board of Healing Arts, which licenses and regulates doctors, would have to move to revoke the physician’s license. The board could avoid a revocation only if a two-thirds majority found “clear and convincing” evidence that there was no public threat and the doctor had been “sufficiently rehabilitated.”

Fetal viability: The legal definition of “viable” would change. A fetus is now viable if “sustained survival” is possible outside the womb without “extraordinary medical means.”

The new definition would declare a fetus viable if, “There is a reasonable probability that the life of the child can be continued indefinitely” with “natural or artificial life-supportive measures.”

Also, in determining whether a fetus is viable, a physician would have to follow accepted standards of care applied by other doctors in similar circumstances.

Second opinion: The doctor providing a second opinion for a late-term abortion would have to be licensed in Kansas. That’s not required by law now.

Both doctors would have to provide a written statement outlining their diagnoses, which would have to be based on “a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable in the field, and knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities.”

’Partial birth’ rules: A procedure defined as “partial-birth” abortion in Kansas law would be prohibited, except when a patient’s life is in danger, in line with a federal law. State law now allows such abortions when a woman also faces a substantial and irreversible impairment of her physical or mental health, but KDHE says no doctor has reported using the procedure since October 1999.

Informed consent rules: Except in medical emergencies, at least 30 minutes before a late-term abortion, the doctor performing it would have to provide the patient with a written report justifying the abortion and the referral from the second doctor.

If the abortion were on a nonviable fetus, the patient would have to receive a written report outlining why the fetus is not viable.

Also, 24 hours before the abortion, in obtaining the patient’s informed consent for any abortion, the doctor would have to tell the patient that, “The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Topeka  Anti-abortion legislators in Kansas are pushing again this year to rewrite state restrictions on late-term procedures and for other initiatives, despite the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

Tiller was the face of the abortion debate in Kansas — and sometimes nationally — because his Wichita clinic was among a few in the U.S. performing abortions in the last weeks of pregnancy. Tiller’s clinic has been closed since he was shot to death in May and no doctor or clinic elsewhere in Kansas is doing the same work.

But legislators who oppose abortion still expect to pass a bill requiring doctors who perform late-term procedures to report more information to the state and making it possible for them to face lawsuits if patients or others come to believe their abortions violated state law. Abortion opponents contend such issues are still compelling, even if no doctor or clinic is performing abortions as late as Tiller did.

Such a bill passed last year but was vetoed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, an abortion rights Democrat, days before she was confirmed as U.S. health and human services secretary. Kansas House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lance Kinzer, an Olathe Republican, said he’ll use that measure as a starting point for a debate this year.

Meanwhile, Sen. Tim Huelskamp, a Fowler Republican, said he’ll revive his proposal to prevent $250,000 in federal funds from flowing through the state to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, which operates an abortion clinic in Overland Park. The money is for programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and Sebelius’ successor, Gov. Mark Parkinson, another abortion rights Democrat, vetoed Huelskamp’s proposal in May.

Some abortion rights supporters had hoped for a break from the Legislature’s perennial debates over abortion because of lingering revulsion over Tiller’s murder, including among many abortion opponents. Abortion rights backers also contend the state’s ongoing budget problems should take precedence.

But Kinzer and other abortion opponents see postponing the debates as a mistake.

“The number of variables that can come into play 12 months from now as opposed to proceeding now are impossible to calculate,” Kinzer said.

Fundraising opportunity

Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive officer of the Planned Parenthood chapter, said he’s not surprised at abortion opponents’ plans. He sees the annual legislative disputes mainly as an effort to help anti-abortion groups raise money.

“There’s nobody in the state of Kansas who’s doing abortions past 22 weeks of pregnancy. It’s a moot issue, from a practical standpoint,” he said. “For the Legislature to continue to spend significant amounts of its time on an issue that has no practical impact is waste of taxpayer money and legislative time.”

Abortion opponents believe they have the same strong majorities in both legislative chambers for a bill rewriting late-term abortion restrictions and are close to the two-thirds majorities necessary to override a veto.

Timing not ideal

Parkinson spokeswoman Beth Martino declined to speculate on whether he would veto such legislation, but in an interview only days after becoming governor, Parkinson said his and Sebelius’ views on abortion are “very similar.”

“His views have not changed since last April, as far as I know,” Martino said.

Bob Beatty, a Washburn University of Topeka political scientist, said abortion opponents might do better to wait until after Parkinson leaves office. He’s not running for a full term this year, and U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, an anti-abortion Republican, is a strong favorite to replace him.

People have used birth control methods for thousands of years. Today, we have many safe and effective birth control methods available to us.

All of us who need birth control want to find the method that is best for us. And each of us has different needs when choosing a method. If you are trying to choose, learning about each method may help you make your decision. Use the list of birth control methods above to read about the methods.

Only you can decide what is best for you. And we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss all of your birth control options with you and help you get the birth control you need.

"... Sen. Tim Huelskamp, a Fowler Republican, said he’ll revive his proposal to prevent $250,000 in federal funds from flowing through the state to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, which operates an abortion clinic in Overland Park. The money is for programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies..."
This money is designated for sex education and contraception. Yay. Let's have even more unplanned pregnancies that we can then force to term. I find it odd that these are the same people who complain about "welfare mommas".
This proposed law could force women to carry to term what is essentially a non-viable fetus when doing so doesn't present to the mother herself substantial physical harm. It could also force women to carry to term genetically mutated children (such as Down's babies) simply because they are "viable".
It also would force families to maintain babies on artificial life support even if such support would be indefinite. (This part may be open to constitutional challenge. )
Even the present law is wrong, stating that viability begins at 21 weeks, when the accepted standard in the medical community is 24 weeks.
Will someone please tell me when this craziness is going to end?

"these people"??? That's a phrase used almost exclusively by elitists and racists. Which are you?

And if for one moment you could think like a pro-lifer, you'd realize that laying witness to over one million children killed every year to abortion means there are few issues more important than putting an end to infanticide.

This is a great idea. Let's waste even more valuable time to prevent a practice that does not occur in this state. There can't possibly by anything more important than this issue. Except maybe the largest budget crisis since the Depression.

The number of votes is the same as it was last year. So why don't we take the time and figure out how to care for the families and children already born instead of wasting more time on an issue that won't change until we get a new governor.

We are facing huge budget issues, unemployment is high, roads and infrastructure need major repairs, health care is becoming more out of reach everyday and the legislature is going to spend more time on abortion. Way to go guys. Let's keep those blinders on. Of course they have already proven that once the fetus becomes a baby and needs care, the programs aren't there. What hypocrisy.

What I find hard to understand about pro-lifers is their obvious disregard for the rights of the mother.
AND I am pro-choice. NOT anti-life. I could never have an abortion; however, I can not take away another woman's right to make that choice for herself.

I tire of men's self-righteous opinions on these matters. I move to end debate on this issue and let everyone exercise their choice to have an abortion or avoid one altogether by having male equipment.

“Do we have the cash to go after and debate ad nauseum a non-problem that only affects a very few?” - porch person

First of all, every abortion destroys a human life. Second, every abortion hurts the woman having it. Third, most abortions in this country only serve to enrich destable groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL. In light of this, to call something as grisly as a third-timester abortion a non-problem is troubling. Also, just because a particular crime “affects a very few” does not mean we should not pursue justice in the matter.

Finally, pro-life politicians are actually more likely to lose votes because of their respect-for-life views than to gain them, so to say that anyone would oppose abortion to "gain political power" is not a viable claim.

Congress has the right to address the issue, and is the only body that has the legal authority, apart from a petition from the public for a Constitutional Amendment.

Congress could initiate an Amendment. They could also legislate that protection of the Constitution applies to the unborn child, basing the proposal on the medical fact that the being developing in the host's uterus is unique, with his/her own genetic identity, blood type, etc. He/she is certainly neither the flesh of the mother nor, as per anti-slavery laws, her property.

Unfortunately, according to a state legislative leader who represents the majority party, "The topic is just too good as a campaign issue." I heard nearly identical explanation from a member of the Republican Congressional Committee.

Until the highly unlikely occasion that one of those acts is accomplished, the question of abortion is legally seen as a moral issue. Most legislators consider moral issues to be of a religious basis, and protected as a first amendment freedom.

One party, in particular, has won hundreds of legislative elections based on the anti-abortion argument since the late 1970's, and have never made an effort to act upon their promise, once seated in the legislature.

This is still a very sticky issue. I personally oppose abortion, (fetus is, literally translated, "smallest infant, or ittybitty baby"), but I believe the responsibility to make the decision is the parents'.

"......Why are so called right to lifers against public education of our youth regarding the many choices in preventing pregnancy which is the true answer to reducing abortions?...."

Merrill,

I think a more accurate question might be is "why do the pro-abortion" proponents such as yourself continue to cut and paste a list of birth control methods that are ineffective. Breastfeeding and the withdrawal method are NOT birth control methods.

Perhaps in the interest of educating our young (who by the way are not the majority of women getting abortions), you should delete these two "options" from your list so that it accurately reflects the medical and scientific fact that neither breastfeeding or the withdrawal method are medically sound forms of birth control.

As for the new regulations, I would think people would applaud them since it mandates more medical information about the viability of the child as well as more legal recourse for the woman should they feel that the abortion was not justified or legal.

Many courts in many states disagree with beobachter's opinion. He apparently disagrees with the fact of legal protection of the unborn human in cases against drug-abusing mothers, drunk drivers killing unborn babies in car crashes, etc.

There are many people serving long prison terms for, specifically, killing the baby in the mother's womb, accidentally or as a result of another sort of assault. There are even states that can imprison the mother for alcohol or drug use, as, specifically, an assault against their child.

In some of those cases, the charge is, specifically, homicide, which is killing of a person.

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times in February of 1997, "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure (partial birth abortion) is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

Hydrocephalus is a condition in which the normal flow of excess intracranial fluid is not released through the normal mechanism. It results, if untreated, in a great big head, due to the hydraulic pressure inside. It also, mostly in the past, resulted in retardation from the excessive pressure on the brain.

Hydrocephaly is usually treated today, with the implantation of a shunt, which allows the pressure to normalize. In many cases the retardation that resulted in the past never materializes.

This is one issue the GOP needs to give up on. IT is not a political issue, it is a personal issue. And if you want to reduce abortions, you need to stop pregnancy, so birth control would reduce abortions.

858,000 abortions in a year, and 53% are "second abortions". Birth Control would stop 53% of those if the women would use them

If the GOP would get on the birth COntrol wagon, then they could be taken seriously on the abortion stance.

Your getting your feet wet porch_person. There is no chance that you will ever get the antiabortion/and or bible thumpers to get involved in a decent intelligent discussion. They will never change their mind any more than they will believe that birth control measures can and does fail.

barrypenders, this is not on the topic, but do you have a glossary, or a dictionary of some sort we could refer to to figure out what the hekk you're talking about? It's kind of novel trying to figure, but since you put a lot of electrons to work there, and spend some appreciable time, I'd like to grok your set, just in case it's important., useful, or funny.

I said, if you'd read it before your seventeenth vodka, that it would take a congressional action to overturn RvW. I did not say that I supported that.

I said that the Repubs have run on it for about 35 years and not done a thing. I didn't vote for them, or support that issue.

I corrected beobachter's claim that a pre-birth human is not a human, based on laws of of 35 states.

I said that your bumper-sticker quiz question of hydrocephaly was pretty sophomoric.

I said that each person must make their own choice, it's moral and that's personal. You believe what you want.

I did not conflate a bullet in the belly with issues of medical necessity. You brought that to the table, not me.

I say you're still eating your shoe.

Now I'll say you play pretty loose, are probably drunk, and that babies with no brain don't live very long.

You're the one claiming you know it all. I've had a little coursework, a little hospital experience, am not an obstetrician like you, obviously. You go on and rant about anencephaly, that's your thing. We're all waiting with bated breath. I've said what I want, and you seem obsessed to mess with me. More quiz questions, perfesser?

You lose the bet. You have no information, can't read very well, conflate your own internal ramblings with the former two ingredients, and lose the bet, flat out.

I am not convinced that 'arrogance' applies here. You are, actually, pretty biologically alienated from the whole process after you submit 50% of the blueprints.

When childbirth/pregnancy is removed entirely from the woman's body, either by using a test tube or by becoming a reptile and laying some kind of egg, I will of course accept your equal say in the matter!

Until this is how things are routinely handled, I absolutely do think that whomever acts as the human vessel and literal human resource has the most important say re: whether a pregnancy continues. :)

The anti-choice people, especially those like BarryPenders, clearly have a problem with sex. They probably can't enjoy it and don't want anyone else to, either. All they can do is go on about others' "carnal knowledge". That's why they won't support comprehensive sex education. Well, they should get used to abortion being around, because even if the republicans take over all the branches of government, they will never do anything to outlaw abortion. It's too good of a boogeyman to raise funds from the weak minded sheep for them to give it up. Besides, republicans get mistresses pregnant, too, you know.

"am not trying to antagonize you with this question but I was wondering if you are a follower of Rev. Phelps?"

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll chime in. I'm no follower of Rev Phelps, but he is well in his rights to say what he wants. Free speech isn't only for words you agree with. In fact, Phelps, despite his wacky ideas, is a symptom of what makes America great. Even those of you that vehemently disagree with him should admire him for employing that amendment you profess to hold in highest esteem.

The GOP has exploited one issue pro-life voters to gain power over the last 20 years and has subsequently done terrible things to this country. They have absolutely no intention of actually reversing Roe v Wade, politically that would be like dropping the oar that steers the ship! Wake up pro-lifers....vote pro-life Democrat if you can!

"they'll learn that most terminations of pregnancy occur outside of human intervention"

Then its not an abortion, its a miscarriage. I think you will find that everyone, including the furthest right-winger feels nothing but compassion for a woman that has had a miscarriage.

What you posted about that is so far out in left field (not politically - sports-metaphorically) that I'm not sure why you posted it.

As for abortion being too good a talking point to lose, that seems to be the case as little is ever done beyond the grass roots concerning the issue. It rallies the troops... just like healthcare reform.

I am...you guessed it, pro life. However abortions are legal and so I live with it. I would like a law that bans late term abortions. That does not conflict with Roe v Wade, other states have such laws.

We on the other hand became the nations center for late term abortions and I would like to see that go away. I understand that following Tiller's death the number of late term abortions have dramatically declined, but that is doctor preference not law.

leedavid, the reason the number of late term abortions has dramatically declined is because George Tiller was one of only a handful of doctors in this country that specialized in late term abortions. Take just one doctor out of the equation and yes they will dramatically decline.
Whether you agree with it or not, all abortions done past viability (24 weeks is accepted medical standard, 21 weeks by law in this state) are done because something is radically wrong with the fetus. The vast majority of these conditions cannot be diagnosed until late in pregnancy.
Statistically, the number of late term abortions coincides with the percentage chance of such a condition occurring.
I would also like to point out something and reiterate it for what seems the thousandth time. Partial birth abortion does not exist. It is a mythical procedure that has never been done by any licensed physician in the United States. The fact that there are "laws" against it, including in this state, makes me shake my head. PBA is a nonexistent procedure that was made up for the sole purpose of creating horror and emotionally manipulating people against abortion overall.

Cait48:
Yes I agree with Dr. Tiller not performing late term abortions the number nationally would go down, since he was one of a few that would offer such a procedure. Before anyone jumps on me...I do not support his murder.

No partial birth abortions in the US? Really?

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

There's a difference between dilation and extraction abortions and partial birth abortion. D&X is used in cases where the fetus is already dead or will die immediately at birth. Some families choose this so they can grieve over the body of the baby. Indeed, as PBA is defined in the law, it has never been done.